The Syndicate

G-Man wrote:

Sloonei wrote:This is my first victory banner, I like it.

Victory looks good on you, sir.

Indeed it does

G-Man wrote:The big takeaway here is that none of the BTSC-eligible civvie roles ever obtained BTSC. A certain baddie (you know who you are) kept bringing up the issue of 'too much BTSC making too many civvies known to each other.' Oh, if only you knew how hard I had to bite my tongue!

Looking back on it now, do you feel that I revealed too much information through the lynch and night posts? My posting style is like the old days of Lostpedia and The Piano. I've found I need to adapt that style for the folks here just a little more for the next game. I still think a balance can be achieved.

Also, Max got lynched before he had the chance to go mad. I regret never integrating Max or his family into the narrative, as they are the focus of the film.

For now, I must go to bed. I'll post a few other random thoughts and observations tomorrow. Feel free to post your questions. I will answer them!

Thank you all again for playing. This game exceeded my expectations on quality, duration, and excitement. Games are great because the players make it great. Thank you!

From my perspective, G - thought you did a great job. From the macabre (Motel Room) to the hilarious (Dom) you're write-ups were thoroughly entertaining. As for revealing too much information, I don't believe so. In my opinion there was nothing there that deliberately misled anyone and what was there was analysed to death and I personally think it was one of the things that made the game so enjoyable

Scotty wrote:Yeah Glorf, you did well, and you held strong to your own integrity. Very well done.
I'm voting this for best mafia performance so far that ive sent this year, even if you were robbed. I hardly feel like I deserve the share of the win.

Look forward to playing with you all again in a future game!

Thank you, Scotty It's true - if I achieved anything at all this game, it was that I managed to negotiate the minefield of my integrity and personal beliefs without bringing the whole game crashing down around me. Although others jumped on Jay's challenge to me in asking those questions he did, I honestly don't think anyone other than him truly understood the consequences of him doing so in as far as I was concerned. Frankly, I love the guy and it was extremely astute of him to ask those questions when and how he did. The problem I have is that my reply to him held consequences for me far beyond this game (and The Syndicate). Still, from his reaction to my response, I accept that he at least understands my position and I appreciate that enormously.

Sloonei wrote:I look forward to playing with you again whenever possible, Glorf!

As unlikely as that is for quite some time, my friend - you proved to me this game what I'd thought of you in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. You are formidable at these games (despite that whole 'Dom thing') and I respect you enormously for that. I too hope I get the opportunity to play WITH you again one day. It's observing people like you and Jay that make these games such an educational experience to students of the game like me

Thanks, G for being such an amazing host. Thanks too to my team of Quin, Zebs and Epi - I know I was a millstone around your necks but I appreciate your grace and understanding all the same. You guys were totally awesome and you deserved to win (in my view).

Congratulations to all the Townies! I may have lost this game as a Mafia but I scored big having made a couple of new friends out of this game (you know who you are ). I feel sorry for what some of you were put through (especially Dom) but I guess that's Mafia for you

That's sadly the end of me here for a while but I look forward to catching up with many of you for my LOTR themed Burglary at Christmas

Dom wrote:

G-Man wrote:FYI- the night post may be late tonight. I am babysitting my niece and playing Mr. Mom for the baby on my own tonight while my sister and her husband have a date night and while my wife goes to a girls night. Me and two 1-year olds. Let that sink in and hopefully you'll understand what I'm up against.

You're outnumbered and outgunned there, G. Time to circle the wagons

G-Man wrote:

BEAT THAT GUY

In the wake of exposing Cundalini, the townspeople were encouraged. That May Swaisey bailed them out last night, they were ecstatic. There was a real sense of momentum, something they hadn't felt since the biker gang invaded their otherwise quaint town.

Today, that momentum pointed them in the direction of Epignosis. He argued, he rationalized, he snarked, and then he gave up.

As the remaining townsfolk (because let's be honest- there weren't enough people left to call it a mob) led him toward the Halls of Justice, Epignosis saw an MFP-issue motorcycle parked on the street. He had one last crafty idea.

"You folks really want to pluck out all my feathers, do you?"

"What are you talking about?" someone asked him.

"Who's going to ride my bike when I'm gone?" Epi said, pointing to the motorcycle.

"You're saying that you're Jim Goose?"

"Yeah, I am."

"Prove it."

"Excuse me?" Epi asked.

"You heard me. If you're Jim Goose, you go get on that souped-up motorcycle and let her rip."

"Fine," Epi snapped. He walked over to the bike and mounted it like someone familiar with the contours of a two-wheeled machine. With one confident motion, his foot brought the bike to life. Showing off a little, he held the front brake tight and played with the throttle. He could feel the power of the engine between his legs. It was amazing, intoxicating even. With a nod and a wink to the townspeople, Epi released the brake and opened the throttle up full bore.

But he wasn't ready for the full capacity of the motorcycle he straddled. It reared up on its back wheel, dumped Epi off the back, and fell on top of him. At that point, everyone knew that, while Epignosis knew his way around a motorcycle, he was no Jim Goose.

"Now I know how Motel Room felt," Epi moaned as he rolled the bike off his chest.

Upon hearing Epi's words, the townspeople seized him and exacted equivalent revenge for the handsome Motel Room. They bludgeoned Epignosis to death with whatever tools they had available. It was savage yet cathartic.

-----------------------------------------

EPIGNOSIS has been lynched. He was JOHNNY THE BOY.

It is now Night 9. Role PMs are due by 8:00 pm US Eastern.

You've learnt well, G. This write-up lacked all graphic violence and was much better than the one where poor Motel Room met his demise. For what it's worth, I have come to like Motel Room a great deal - to the point where I deeply regret my not being able to play with him again

insertnamehere wrote: 3JI could see Glorfindel, the affectionate chap he is, not wanting to NK you due to how big of a massive target you usually are, just out of sheer kindness and decency, the absolute madman.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Good game, Matty. You played well.

That means a lot coming from you, Jay. Thank you

insertnamehere wrote:Stealth self-vote from Glorf.

Didn't he say in an earlier game that he hates being a baddie?

Indeed I did, my friend and I do. I'm genuinely sorry to everyone who believed in me but whom I let down. Thanks for the game Guys

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm running short on time. Someone else should do Sloonei and Scotty.

Unless of course there is someone who thinks Glorfindel is town. I'm happy to hear your case.

Yeah, like I thought all along - I don't think you ever had any intention of keeping an open mind about me Jay. Everything you've posted about me screams 'guilty until proven innocent' which is the story of EVERY SINGLE game I've played here. I can't even put into words (and that's saying something coming from me...) the disappointment that I feel for the complete lack of objectivity I've witnessed this game. We can't afford a mis-lynch from now on? Fine. Go right ahead...

I said I am happy to hear the case for you being town. I'm not sure what else can reasonably be expected of me. Everyone in this game knows I'm town and thus they should know that my efforts are genuine. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but it isn't because I haven't tried the best I can.

You've seen the evidence I've assembled against you. Do you believe it to be illogical somewhere? My final decision won't have been made until I let the Day 8 deadline pass and my final vote stay. By all means, maintain the dialogue.

There IS NO evidence against me Jay - just spin and conjecture (like in EVERY game I've played on this site - let me ask you, just how many times has this happened here - where there is apparently conclusive evidence against me that led to my lynching? And what was the result on each occasion?). But hey, if you think that's conclusive, who am I to argue

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm running short on time. Someone else should do Sloonei and Scotty.

Unless of course there is someone who thinks Glorfindel is town. I'm happy to hear your case.

Yeah, like I thought all along - I don't think you ever had any intention of keeping an open mind about me Jay. Everything you've posted about me screams 'guilty until proven innocent' which is the story of EVERY SINGLE game I've played here. I can't even put into words (and that's saying something coming from me...) the disappointment that I feel for the complete lack of objectivity I've witnessed this game. We can't afford a mis-lynch from now on? Fine. Go right ahead...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I called that the second most likely possibility: INH as Silvertongue and you as Jim Goose. The thing that confuses me in that scenario is the you were pretty strongly opposed to the idea that INH was Silvertongue. If you're Jim Goose, why would that be?

I also explained why I don't believe you're Jim Goose and he's Cundalini. That doesn't mesh with the host posts.

Did I 'strongly oppose' the scenario of INH being Silvertongue though, Jay? At the EoD 4, I seem to recall some pretty far fetched theories being tossed around and the one I proposed I genuinely didn't think (based on my personal experience) at the time was all that left-field

If you wouldn't mind, Jay - I'd also like you to clarify something else for me. In your post above you said:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:G-Man has said in this game that there are going to be some small clues in his host posts which might explain certain events in the game.

Please forgive me if I'm mistaken but I believe what he said was:

G-Man wrote:I reserve the right to be as specific or vague in each lynch and night post as I choose to be.

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of that remark is certainly not how I'd interpret it...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:Let me try that again, can you please explain:

1) How INH's role is in any way an indicator or predictor or my role?

I wouldn't call it a "predictor", but it is an indicator. Both of you survived lynches, and there are only three roles in this game that make that possible. The purpose of my work is to determine which of those three roles each of of you has, in addition to alternative possibilities, and then judge what possible combinations make the most sense. If INH is one role, you must be one of the other two.

The only other option is to suggest that either of you is none of the three roles and was saved by someone else who must be Silvertongue. This doesn't seem to work though, because there was nobody in the game who would be likely to do that in either failed lynch. I don't know who on this game roster would have prevented your lynch other than you, and I don't know anyone who would have prevented INH's lynch other than him.

Glorfindel wrote:2) What you mean precisely by your reference to "it fits the Host's posts"? And by that, I mean in all circumstances where you used that wording.

G-Man has said in this game that there are going to be some small clues in his host posts which might explain certain events in the game. The two failed lynches are a good example, because they were described in very different ways in their respective host posts.

When INH's lynch failed, the host post told a story of a specific person railing against his detractors to save him -- suggesting the involvement of Silvertongue. When your lynch failed, the host post referred only to the mechanism trying to lynch you (the gallows) failing to function -- suggesting a role that is lynchproof.

Thank you very much for that explanation, Jay. I appreciate the effort to which you've gone to indulge me but please allow me to return to my original question.

After all your analysis above, you came to THIS outcome:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Cundalini -- techincally possible and also probable by process of elimination.

I'd like to know what 'process of elimination' you used to arrive at this 'probable' outcome. In considering other alternatives, you said yourself in the VERY SAME post:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Jim Goose -- technically possible and at least worth consideration. We know nothing of his voting power right now.

My prospective 'voting power' is the sole determining factor here and despite having no knowledge of this factor (by your own admission) you judge this option as simply "worthy of consideration" and yet are prepared to state in the same breath that the alternate view is 'probable'. This is not the kind of balanced approach I'd have expected from you at all Jay. Our position is now perilous and if you intend to adopt the same stubborn and bloody-minded approach as others in this game, it may as well be game over!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:This is how the breakdown makes sense for me.

Possible Glorfindel roles:

Cundalini -- techincally possible and also probable by process of elimination. The only other scenario available would be Glorfindel | Jim Goose and INH | Cundalini. This seems unlikely given that nobody other than Glorfindel has strongly opposed the idea that INH is Silvertongue.

Question time for you, Jay. Please explain the 'process of elimination' to which you referred above that led you to this 'probable' conclusion.

I think I was able to more clearly state how I arrived there in my next post where I ranked the possibilities. For each option I listed the evidence against them where applicable.

Let me try that again, can you please explain:
1) How INH's role is in any way an indicator or predictor or my role?
2) What you mean precisely by your reference to "it fits the Host's posts"? And by that, I mean in all circumstances where you used that wording.

Thank you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:This is how the breakdown makes sense for me.

Possible Glorfindel roles:

Cundalini -- techincally possible and also probable by process of elimination. The only other scenario available would be Glorfindel | Jim Goose and INH | Cundalini. This seems unlikely given that nobody other than Glorfindel has strongly opposed the idea that INH is Silvertongue.

Question time for you, Jay. Please explain the 'process of elimination' to which you referred above that led you to this 'probable' conclusion.

Sloonei wrote:Did you expect to survive that lynch, Glorfindel?

The question that needs to be answered here, my friend is this:

You were intent on lynching me for practically all of the last Day phase. One of the reasons you used was my failure to respond to your (incredibly vague) request for me to address his response to my ISO analysis of him. Once you made your request explicit, I did as you asked. He never came back to do so before EoD and you seemed quite satisfied to let that slide by. Please explain to me why you seem to apply different standards to Scotty over me. Why does it seem that you accept vague, glib responses from him as bona fide accusations and yet I can put before you a (reasonably solid case) and you brush it aside. Now, again you appear to have automatically assumed my guilt. Enough with interrogating me, I think you need to ask yourself if you're even capable of being objective any longer.

insertnamehere wrote:want to join the randomization party, Glorfindel?

OR SHOULD I SAY CUNDALINI!

NO, I do not, my friend! You need to take a seat, Buddy. It's people with judgement like yours that put us in this mess in the first place

Sloonei wrote:Well that makes me feel better about INH, at least. Glorfindel "survived". INH "was pardoned." Now the question is which of the two survival roles is Glorf? I feel confident that he's the bad one.

I find it very curious that this was the first conclusion to which you jumped my friend

OK, it comes down to this... I'm satisfied that I've done everything I posssibly could've to contribute to this game and my efforts have been (once again for like the fourth or fifth consecutive game) dismissed out of hand... if it wasn't so tragic it would be

Sloonei wrote:Is there going to be any activity or we just twiddling our thumbs while waiting for Glorfindel to flip?

Less than an hour to go and no response from your questioning of Scotty... but no, let's just ignore that and lynch 'good 'ol Glorf'... I wonder why I even bothered

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:May I please ask that someone do a calculation as to how close we are to losing this thing. Perhaps THAT is the reason for Scotty 2.0's unbridled glee at my impending lynch

In a standard scenario, our 6 vs. 3 scenario would equate to one free mislynch. The presence of a potentially lynchproof baddie might negate that though, and instead make it one free unsuccessful lynch (mislynch OR failed lynch, not both).

Could you try to elaborate specifically on what caused you to delay in your refusal to answer my questions?

Certainly, Jay. I wanted to watch this play out to see what other's reactions would be as I thought it may give me some insight into the identity of other players. I understood the place from where you were coming in asking those questions and I expect (that being part of our initial conversation) Epi may as well (although I have no clue what he thought he was doing with those gifs...) but the fact that Scotty latched on to me like a drowning man to a lifebuoy (in my view) speaks volumes. The fact that he's done so with the (apparent) support of others in the face of reasonable evidence for suspicion against him does more so.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:It is for this reason, that I am not going to avoid or dance around your questions. I simply categorically refuse to answer them because to do so, would continue to perpetuate what I now fear is a bad approach to these games on my behalf. When I say that I refuse to answer them, let me be absolutely explicit here, I mean not now and not ever again. I trust you will understand what I've tried to explain here in all sincerity. I accept that some more cynical minds will question why I've taken this stance right now, in this game and whether it wouldn't be easier for me to simply answer your questions and adopt my new approach next game. To me, this is a moral question. If I am unable to stand by my principles in a time when (it appears) it counts the most, then when can I?

Independent of reads in this game, I can respect this. It was actually something I thought we might discuss a little in the post-game conversation after this one ends. As I see it, there are only two solutions to your dilemma:

1. Change your approach by adopting a willingness to lie.

2. Categorically refuse to answer any lie-compatible questions in any game you ever play regardless of alignment.

#2 allows you to maintain the moral code you prefer to play with, and I wouldn't fault you for taking that route (as it appears you have just now). It's similar to Epi's own refusal to answer questions or make statements that are vulnerable to lie detector roles.

My lingering concern is close to what you mention at the end there: why not make this refusal clear the first fews times I asked those questions instead of waiting until now? That's a challenging dilemma for me to tackle now, but I will think on it. At the least I'll stop with these interactive analyses, I've run out of time for those anyway.

In the mean time, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks of this.

Thank you Jay for considering my response - that is all I asked of you and I appreciate you doing that. I think Scotty's response however put the lie to his earlier offer to me:

Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote

And Sloonei, I've been with you all game and I respect your decision in this whatever you choose to do. The fact however that you've consistently ignored the case I put against Scotty whilst supporting his push against me based on (frankly) nothing is something that I doubt I'll ever comprehend. You asked me yesterday (eventually) to engage with him about his rebuttal of my ISO. I did that. He's not responded. If all this isn't setting off alarm bells for you, I think you're asleep at the wheel...

Scotty wrote:That Dom is still riding the Scotty train to Nowheresville with Glorf should say enough.

Funny enough, I have been feeling great about Sloon this phase and less so about Epi 2.0. I would entreat someone with more time to look at Quin as well, but I'm feeling pretty great about the prospect of a Glorf/Dom/Epi 2.0 right now.

Epi 2.0 gave Glorf ample time to right the ship, parking his vote on JJJ, but Glorf's refusal to lie forced him to change it.

Dom, I'm still not sure why you haven't changed your vote to Glorf if you are trying to salvage any shred of civness.

I dunno guys but I'm feelin pretty good shot our prospects with at least the next 2 lynches and maybe the game.

Also, I'll go ahead and say I am in no way or shape a Skag.

May I please ask that someone do a calculation as to how close we are to losing this thing. Perhaps THAT is the reason for Scotty 2.0's unbridled glee at my impending lynch

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, I still need answers to these questions:

1. Are you bad?

2. Are you a member of a team that killed anyone in this group: MovingPictures07, MacDougall, motel room?

I'm going to adjust the first question.

1. Are you a member of the team in this Mafia game called the Skags?

Please still answer both.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sure, go ahead and do the work you've set out to do. Please try to answer those two questions before you leave the thread for the day though. They don't require any research.

Thank you Jay for your patience in awaiting my reply to your questions. I now ask your indulgence one more time - to grant me the courtesy of reading my response carefully and thoughtfully before jumping to any conclusions. I thank you sincerely in advance for your courtesy in this regard.

It's been six days and nights now and things look grim for us and it's in this context that you ask me these questions. Though you may deny it, the truth is that these questions are NOT about my role in this game, they speak directly and unequivocally to my personal character.

In posts I've made in earlier games on this site (and others) I have (somewhat naively) traded on my personal integrity and honesty in never having lied about my alignment in any Mafia game I've ever played. My protestations however have been to no avail and have gone almost completely unheeded. And now, as this game draws to a bitter end, you (someone whose respect I genuinely cherish) come to me asking me to confirm my alignment.

If I recall correctly, my approach (as referred to above) was a topic of discussion between the two of us and Epi in the Town BTSC Chat last game (The Garden of Peaches). In our conversation, you or Epi (I can't recall now who) asked me to consider what that might mean in future games I play for the other members of a non-Town team (and specifically Mafia teams I suppose) of which I may find myself a part. The two of you challenged me to consider the price of my approach with respect to the enjoyment of others who play these games and whose experience of them may be seriously diminished by the selfishness of my approach. I did consider your points carefully and find myself left in a dilemma in respect of my playing Mafia games in the future.

It is for this reason, that I am not going to avoid or dance around your questions. I simply categorically refuse to answer them because to do so, would continue to perpetuate what I now fear is a bad approach to these games on my behalf. When I say that I refuse to answer them, let me be absolutely explicit here, I mean not now and not ever again. I trust you will understand what I've tried to explain here in all sincerity. I accept that some more cynical minds will question why I've taken this stance right now, in this game and whether it wouldn't be easier for me to simply answer your questions and adopt my new approach next game. To me, this is a moral question. If I am unable to stand by my principles in a time when (it appears) it counts the most, then when can I?

As for this game, I'd ask you, my friend to apply the same measure to me that you would to everyone else. Consider my actions and my comments throughout this game and if you find them wanting, then by all means, you should vote for me. If however you find they are reasonable under what you believe to have been my circumstances and ability, then you should look elsewhere. I am committed to this team however and will continue to contribute the best I'm able to make this work out irrespective of your decision.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think it's been long enough now and I'll just clearly state why I suspect you now, Glorfindel:

I think you might have an aversion to lying (Epignosis seems to be of the same perspective considering the .gifs), which is why I have kept asking two questions which leave no room for anything but either honestly or dishonesty. I have worded them in such a way that all possible loopholes I can think of are closed. I get the impression you've been unwilling to answer those questions, as you've acknowledged them a number of times but have still not put answers in the thread, which suggests to me that you don't want to lie (as would be required if you're bad). That's an honorable mindset so I of course don't mean to be critical, but that's where my suspicion is stemming from now.

Indeed, it has been long enough. You know me very well, Jay - better than most on this site and I'm proud of that. An aversion to lying? Maybe... I understood the purpose of your questions but there are broader implications at stake here (of which you'd be aware and I've deliberately left my answer to them this long to see who'd jump on my wagon because THAT is illuminating.

The fact that (in my opinion) the one person I have every reason to be Mafia is on my wagon and against whom I have consistently been putting evidence before you and everyone else this day phase and my arguments have been ignored and disregarded leave me with little hope that we can win this game. You need to ask yourselves some searching questions as to why you've left yourselves open to this kind of deception because if you don't now, you will later.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Just to be thorough, I looked back at Star Wars Mafia where Glorfindel was bad. I'm comparing his behavior then to now when under lynch pressure.

Star Wars

Glorfindel wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:I need to vote pronto, it seems.

I really need to do some digging and ISOing before I can properly adjust my rainbow list, so... I'm sticking with a vote for my most recently expressed top mafia read, Glorfindel. Not that it matters for the result, but in spirit.

OK, MP, Golden, Mac, Zeb and the rest of you... sure, I could spend my time on some analysis, etc. but at this point, please explain to me what exactly would be the point. Just like Simon, you've already made up your minds about me and let's face the facts - because you're unwilling to seriously consider a vote on anyone inside your little clique, I'd pretty much be wasting my time as will you while you blissfully skip down the path to oblivion next day phase on another fanciful quest while the Mafia sit back and laugh at you all...

Mad Max

Glorfindel wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?

Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.

The similarity is striking. I am confident enough that his lynch would be productive for town that I am going to proceed with interactive analyses as though he has already flipped as a baddie.

If in the end he does not, well that sucks.

My dear friend, are you SERIOUS? You take two posts in isolation and draw that conclusion? I'm frankly shocked you could be so selective (biased) in your analysis. Did you bother to consider whether or not I made the same kinds of posts on every other occasion I've been mis-lynched in every other game I've played on this site? Of course not. Because that wouldn't support the conclusion to which you've come. Such blatant confirmation bias is not something I'd ever expected from you - but let's not let the truth stand in the way of an easy lynch

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote

My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.

tho this makes me want to vote glorf

And just why is that, Dom? I've been playing Mafia games here for a year now and still people make statement like you just did about my posts - and they just keep getting it wrong...

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:unfairly snipping all of glorf's investigative work to get to the conclusion

Glorfindel wrote:
In my view, I think this analysis suggests to me that Scotty is clearly suspicious and not simply for the performance of his predecessor. I think his indiscriminate criticism of my voting record looks suspicious on that basis alone and he seems to have some difficulty making a logical case against it (with good reason). I also find Sprityo's early interactions with Jay mildly suspicious as do I judge his continual sniping at one of my strongest Town reads all game (Sloonei). His reads appear to me to have been limited and (apart from Sloonei) without a lot of structured arguments to support them. Having just gone through all that, I'm prepared to place my vote on Scotty pending other developments.

Hey Scotty, care to address any of these points at all? You gave a sarcastic quip earlier, but I don't get that as a substantive response.

Ok.

I don't know what to respond to. My criticism of his voting record looks suspicious? Hummm says the guy who just analyzed and criticized both my and sprityo's voting record.

My "continual sniping" at Sloonei is because I don't necessarily want to rule him out as bad. Why does Glorf place Sloon as one of his highest town reads?

My reads hve been limited, and that I won't deny. That's my jumping in and not necesssriy reading through most of day 2 and 3. I've been going on guy without making verbose arguments. That's just how I'm playing this as a replacement. If that's suspicious alone, then I apologize.


And @Sloonei regarding placing my vote on Dom and Wilgy instead of Glorf, i chose poorly. I didn't necessarily trust a train that was already formed on Glorf and was looking at more than one option.

OK, Scotty - let's take this from the top. This is your post saying my voting record was suspicious:

Scotty wrote:I don't like Glorfindel's voting record.
Day 1, early Mac vote. Disappears later and lets the wind of time dictate the lynch.
Day 2, no vote.
Day 3, he makes the second to last vote in the poll and votes for LoRab to tie the lynch. Motel room brings down the hammer on Elo. (Good look for MR)
Day 4, (which i just read) he says he broke the tie, but I can't tell. This one I'm not as bothered about, because he had expressed suspicion of INH prior to the vote. This EoD makes me twitch slightly because we DONT have a lynch and so it's hard to analyze if anyone was protecting someone with votes. I'd like to believe that Wilgy is still bad. But Glorf could be an accomplice.

I don't know Glorf's baddie game all that well. I could be looking for truffles in the wrong forest.

Day 1. Yes, I voted for Mac Day 1 because I found his comments contradictory (and posted as much at the time). I placed my vote on him and saw no reason to change it. Would you have been less suspicious of me had I been on the train that mistakenly lynched you?

Day 2. Yes, I missed the vote. I think it's the first that I've missed in all the games I've played on this site and I am embarrassed about that. At the time however, I had some rather important real life issues on my plate as I recall (and again, I'm fairly certain that I'd mentioned as much in the thread). If you choose to discount my circumstances, that's your choice.

Day 3. Yes, I was late to the thread that morning to find the Elohcin and LoRab wagons tied or nearly and cast my vote on LoRab. I'd had suspicions of her that Day Phase (and no longer do) and couldn't see the logic behind Elohcin's wagon. Again, I'd explained that at the time and my posts bear that out.

Day 4. Yes, I did break the tie. You have no evidence to the contrary but are happy to spin doubts about the actual events to support your opinion of me. You make an association between DrWilgy and I saying that if DrWilgy is bad, so am I. Well, DrWilgy wasn't bad...
You claim my record is suspicious? Please explain to me or provide evidence of where my voting behaviour appears duplicitous. In response to my analysis of your ISO (and as a consequence although not explicitly, your voting record) you offer no defence whatsover other than "Hummm says the guy who just analyzed and criticized both my and sprityo's voting record."

My comments about your sniping at Sloonei relate specifically to what I saw in (Ref: 5.6) where you declare that if Indiglo is good, then that's a far better look for Sloonei. Indiglo WAS good and yet your re-evaluation of Sloonei is that "I'm not sure this makes Sloonei look better...". I interpreted your continued reluctance to accept a player I believed to be good as noteworthy. As to why I thought so highly of Sloonei amongst my reads, I think I've said the same thing almost since we began this game and did so again today. May I ask you (in just a couple of sentences) why you think I'm wrong about our friend Sloonei. What is it about him that you find so suspicious?

Lastly, I accept your concerns about 'subbing in' - I've never done that and I don't really have an appreciation of what it's like. I'd imagine though that it's a tough ask. That being said, can you explain to me where my being thorough (or verbose as you put it) suggests to you that I'm bad

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?

My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.

I too am sorry, my friend but I'm not that fond of your post either. You asked whether I had "any response to what Scotty said". That is precisely what I provided you. I didn't interpret your post as asking me to engage with Scotty (nor do I think would any normal person assume that interpretation based on the manner in which you asked your question). I also think your next statement (above) about me being reluctant to engage in the case he made against me is false - he has NOT made a case of any substance against me and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. I am supremely confident of defending myself against such vacuous accusations - the pertinent question here IS - are you prepared to (unwittingly) throw your lot in with the Mafia forces in this game? I confess, for the first time this game, I find myself doubting my judgement of you.

Scotty made a pretty substantive response to your case against him in this post and my hope was that you would respond directly to it. If that was not clear, it should be now and I'd still invite you to give it a response. But instead of doing that, you responded to me asking you about it by continuing to be vaguely but confidently critical of Scotty. You claim to be giving me a response to what he said, but your post doesn't suggest you actually read or took in what Scotty wrote. He provided three counter-arguments to three of your points against him, none of which you address here. Instead you turned it into an OMGUS against me, which I am not buying. I welcome the skepticism if you are town, but I do not currently think you are.

I beg your pardon, my friend? You consider that a substantive post in response to my analysis of his ISO? And no, if your intent was for me to engage with Scotty directly in response to what he wrote in that post, you most certainly were NOT remotely clear! And again, no - I probably didn't give his response the attention it deserved but am of course willing to do so. I also don't accept that I OMGUS'd you. I have consistently believed you to be Town for this entire game based on the depth of your analysis, your thoroughness and your diligence in trying to solve this game. I'd have expected that you'd respect that same level of commitment to this game (which is what I've done my best to provide, consistent with the time I've had available) but it seems you are prepared to look more favourably upon accusations without foundation instead.

I still want to believe that you're Town and if you feel that I've accused you falsely I hope you will understand that it just comes from a place of frustration with the direction this game is headed right now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Do you know why that is my read?

No. At this point, I don't care to hear your justification for your vote. I'd prefer you to wait for my answer to your questions. And even then, I don't think I want to hear them either. Sorry.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel:

1. Are you a member of the faction called the "Skags" in this Mafia game?

2. Are you a member of a team that was responsible for the night kills of anyone among the following people: Epignosis, S~V~S, MovingPictures07, MacDougall, and/or motel room?

Your recent posts (refer this page) indicate to me that are convinced of my guilt in this game, Jay ("the reddest shade of red on your rainbow right now")

What difference at all would a response from me to these questions make to your judgement or anyone else's for that matter? I will answer them but I don't doubt for a second that my answer will make the slightest difference to your judgement, those who accuse me without any evidence whatsoever or those who for whom I've been the subject of ridicule so far this Day phase.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Yes.

I don't care if what I'm about to say is interpreted as being overly emotional or whatever. This response (to me) is the bitterest pill of all to swallow

Sloonei wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?

My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

I am sorry Glorfindel, but I do not like this post. I asked you to address Scotty, and you responded by addressing me about Scotty. To me that suggests a reluctance to engage in the case he has made against you, which suggests you are not confident that you can defend yourself against this suspicion.

I too am sorry, my friend but I'm not that fond of your post either. You asked whether I had "any response to what Scotty said". That is precisely what I provided you. I didn't interpret your post as asking me to engage with Scotty (nor do I think would any normal person assume that interpretation based on the manner in which you asked your question). I also think your next statement (above) about me being reluctant to engage in the case he made against me is false - he has NOT made a case of any substance against me and neither has anyone else to my knowledge. I am supremely confident of defending myself against such vacuous accusations - the pertinent question here IS - are you prepared to (unwittingly) throw your lot in with the Mafia forces in this game? I confess, for the first time this game, I find myself doubting my judgement of you.

Scotty wrote:Glorf, are you bad?

If you say the right answer, I might move my vote

My friend, I've played many games with you here at The Syndicate and you are someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. In this game however, I am increasingly convinced you are Mafia and your post above (in my opinion) is the icing on the cake. Do you REALLY expect me to buy that in ANY circumstance, you would shift your vote from me knowing that in all likelihood the consequence would be your own lynching?

I (want to) believe at the moment that the questions asked of me by Jay came from a place of genuineness and sincerity. I'm really sorry but the question put to me in the manner that you just did reeks of manipulation.

Epignosis wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?

My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

What is your opinion of Dom, Glorf?

And at what point is JJJ's pointed questions of "Are you bad?" are you looking to answer on your long list of things to get back to?

I will happily review my opinion of Dom and get back to you, my friend (I'm not given to throwing out glib opinions on others as is the case of some others in this game).

You obviously missed this post from Jay (only a few hours ago):

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think the Llama Method is more likely to work with some players than others, and Glorfindel is one I would put in that category. That's why I have been pressing those questions. I'd agree that they've not been answered in a way that would indicate his innocence.

I'm still listening though Matty, so answer at will.

And so I shall. I have no idea what he is referring to in his reference to 'the Llama method' but it's probably not that important in this context. You seem uncommonly keen for me to answer those questions all of a sudden...

Moved my vote.

Is that the best you can do Epi? At least Scotty 2.0 went to the trouble of throwing glib accusations with no foundation in fact against me. I personally find your use of that gif demeaning and insulting and below what I'd have expected from someone of your maturity.

Scotty wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?

My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

What is your opinion of Dom, Glorf?

And at what point is JJJ's pointed questions of "Are you bad?" are you looking to answer on your long list of things to get back to?

I will happily review my opinion of Dom and get back to you, my friend (I'm not given to throwing out glib opinions on others as is the case of some others in this game).

You obviously missed this post from Jay (only a few hours ago):

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think the Llama Method is more likely to work with some players than others, and Glorfindel is one I would put in that category. That's why I have been pressing those questions. I'd agree that they've not been answered in a way that would indicate his innocence.

I'm still listening though Matty, so answer at will.

And so I shall. I have no idea what he is referring to in his reference to 'the Llama method' but it's probably not that important in this context. You seem uncommonly keen for me to answer those questions all of a sudden...

Scotty wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel my friend I am going to keep spamming these questions until they are answered.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, I still need answers to these questions:

1. Are you bad?

2. Are you a member of a team that killed anyone in this group: MovingPictures07, MacDougall, motel room?

I'm going to adjust the first question.

1. Are you a member of the team in this Mafia game called the Skags?

Please still answer both.

My dear friend, I'm sorry - I hadn't seen these questions when you'd posted them originally but I saw that you had asked them earlier today. I am trying to work through all of the things that I've been asked and will answer your questions in due course. I trust that I can impose upon your patience for that?

What even kind of answer is this?

It's like the judge asking the jury after a lengthy murder trial whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty and the foreman triumphantly responding, "I had a great breakfast today!"

I don't understand why someone as thoughtful and well spoken as Glorf (and he is) wouldn't be keen in answering a yes or no question but instead answer in an offhanded remark telling JJJ to take a number

Firstly, I'd like to address this. In my view, only someone who was trying to spin my guilt would've interpreted my response to Jay in the way that you did just there. I most certainly did not respond to Jay in that tone and you are being disingenuous to accuse me of having done so.

Sloonei wrote:Thanks Scotty!

Glorfindel, got any response to what Scotty said?

My friend, I've believed in you all game and I still feel that you are our best hope here. I reviewed Sprityo/Scotty 2.0 in depth in an attempt to give you the most objective and informed response I could. I think the verdict is quite clear, and I assume I was sufficiently clear in the conclusion that I posted. In return, I've seen little more than the most thinly veiled OMGUS as his response. To my knowledge, he's been unable to put forward anything that looks remotely like a case against me other than declaring me 'Bad' in his GTH reads. I just read that he has resorted to inferring that my posts are 'verbose'. REALLY? If by that he means that I am committed to posting constructively so this will turn out right, then damn straight I'll put my hand up for that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel

I see you weren't content to wait for my reply, Jay

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel my friend I am going to keep spamming these questions until they are answered.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, I still need answers to these questions:

1. Are you bad?

2. Are you a member of a team that killed anyone in this group: MovingPictures07, MacDougall, motel room?

I'm going to adjust the first question.

1. Are you a member of the team in this Mafia game called the Skags?

Please still answer both.

My dear friend, I'm sorry - I hadn't seen these questions when you'd posted them originally but I saw that you had asked them earlier today. I am trying to work through all of the things that I've been asked and will answer your questions in due course. I trust that I can impose upon your patience for that?

Sloonei wrote:I want to hear what Glorfindel thinks of Scotty.

Sloonei wrote:Voting Glorfindel.

Go Cubs.

I assume there was some reason that you wouldn't extend to me the courtesy of making a reply, my friend Or perhaps you weren't genuinely interested in what I had to say on this topic after all? In any case, you shall have your answer!

Sprityo/Scotty 2.0
Day/Night 1.1: Sprityo starts off Day 1 with what appears a light-hearted vote on Jay (AKA Neil) then engages Jay in some remarks here that could be construed as buddying.
1.2: He (attempts) to quote a post from Zebs whose views he claims to share on the matter of the Ricochet/MacDougall fracas and follows this with more Jay banter.
1.3: Involves himself in the DrWilgy/MacDougall 'teaming up request'.
1.4: In this post, he supports a criticism by Jay of one of Elohcin's posts indicating her pursuit of Scotty 1.0

Day/Night 2.1: Confronts DrWilgy over Wilgy's assertion that "The only other player that I have thought about is Sprityo, whom I gut read as bad."
2.2: In this post, Sprityo is seeking to explain his theory on why he interpreted Epi 1.0's last minute vote change suspicious.
2.3: In this post, he brushes of Dr Wilgy's suspicion of him.
2.4: He responds to Sloonei recommending that INH be cut some slack after his Day 2 remarks on the basis that he sees INH as a null or "scummy at worst" read.

Day/Night 4.1: This is one of Scotty's first posts after replacing Sprityo. He claims not to have read any of the thread since his demise on Day 1 yet states that he believes that DrWilgey (one of Sprityo's principal protagonists) is suspicious based on the "polls of the last few days".
4.2: Asks the assembled multitude to explain on what grounds his predecessor (Sprityo) was suspicious.
4.3: Here he defends his vote on DrWilgy to Jay and Motel Room based on 'the vote polls' and specifically the fact that Wilgy's votes paralleled Elohcin's.
4.4: Claims a gut Mafia read on Motel Room
4.5: States that he's not sure about Quin but in the same breath praises him for the content of his posts.

4.6 Scotty states that the suspicions about him were based on the deficiencies of his predecessor but that he is 'not bad'.

Day/Night 5.1: In this posts he states that he finds Glorfindel's voting record suspicious (for reasons such a voting too early and also voting to late).
5.2: Muses over the NK of MP and why Sloonei wasn't a more probable target.

5.3: In this post, Scotty attempts to cast suspicion on Sloonei by alleging a relationship with Indiglo (if she's bad).
5.4: Questions Indiglo's drive by vote and votes for her
5.5: Posted his Day 5 reads here

5.6: In an earlier post (5.3, I think), Scotty states that "If indi is good, then that's a far bette rlooo for him" yet in this post however, he seems (to me) to be backing away from his previous opinion somewhat.
5.7: Alleges suspicion of Dom based on his voting record (particularly on MP).

{b]Day/Night 6.1[/b] Comes to the thread towards the EoD and questions Dom as to whether he is Wilgy's Mafia partner
6.2: Votes Dom
6.3: Votes DrWilgy.

In my view, I think this analysis suggests to me that Scotty is clearly suspicious and not simply for the performance of his predecessor. I think his indiscriminate criticism of my voting record looks suspicious on that basis alone and he seems to have some difficulty making a logical case against it (with good reason). I also find Sprityo's early interactions with Jay mildly suspicious as do I judge his continual sniping at one of my strongest Town reads all game (Sloonei). His reads appear to me to have been limited and (apart from Sloonei) without a lot of structured arguments to support them. Having just gone through all that, I'm prepared to place my vote on Scotty pending other developments.

Sloonei wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I want to hear what Glorfindel thinks of Scotty.

Patience is a virtue, my friend... I will try to get back to you soon.

Sloonei wrote:I want to hear what Glorfindel thinks of Scotty.

Happy to oblige, my friend. I've still got a little catching up to do and I'll give you my thoughts.

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:I come back to this thread and what do I find? Isn't this just charming... Seriously, if I'm the best you guys can come up with, we're in more trouble than I could've imagined...

I've literally read next to nothing that's been posted this Day phase so on the basis of my inability to make an informed decision right now, self preservation will determine my vote.

Emotional manipulation doesn't play well.

I've voted you at the moment for self preservation.

Would you grant me the courtesy, my friend of explaining on what level you see the content of my post as 'emotional manipulation'?

highlighted

That's not really an answer to the question that I asked, ny friend. I wanted to know how you interpreted my remarks to be 'emotional manipulation'?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Everyone who showed up to the game at the last second: I understand if you have busy lives, so if there's no alternative then very well. You do what you gotta do. If at all possible though, please try to get in here sooner than that -- it makes for impossible circumstances for everyone.

I fully endorse your suggestion here Jay and will do everything I can to comply with this request in future. Again, I apologise for my role in these debacles

motel room wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:I come back to this thread and what do I find? Isn't this just charming... Seriously, if I'm the best you guys can come up with, we're in more trouble than I could've imagined...

I've literally read next to nothing that's been posted this Day phase so on the basis of my inability to make an informed decision right now, self preservation will determine my vote.

Was Wilgy the best alternative lynch wagon at this point?

Indeed he was, my friend. From my recollection, I was ahead of Wilgy 3 votes to 2 at the time I voted but things were (again) kinda crazy at the time given the high level of fluidity in the voting.

Dom wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:I come back to this thread and what do I find? Isn't this just charming... Seriously, if I'm the best you guys can come up with, we're in more trouble than I could've imagined...

I've literally read next to nothing that's been posted this Day phase so on the basis of my inability to make an informed decision right now, self preservation will determine my vote.

Emotional manipulation doesn't play well.

I've voted you at the moment for self preservation.

Would you grant me the courtesy, my friend of explaining on what level you see the content of my post as 'emotional manipulation'?

I come back to this thread and what do I find? Isn't this just charming... Seriously, if I'm the best you guys can come up with, we're in more trouble than I could've imagined...

I've literally read next to nothing that's been posted this Day phase so on the basis of my inability to make an informed decision right now, self preservation will determine my vote.